TJ 

3/4- 

L  6 


•NRLF 


7h    S5D 


LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


Gl  FT    OF 


PREFACE. 


To  BOILER  USERS: 

We  are  the  originators  of  the  first  successful  tool  for 
cleaning  water  tube  boiler  tubes,  and  have  developed,  a  line  of 
machines  for  this  purpose  that  are  as  nearly  perfect  as  is  pos- 
sible to  make  them  with  the  best  engineering  ability  available , 
combined  with  our  long  experience  in  this  line. 

The  success  of  the  Liberty  Tools  has  encouraged  other 
manufacturers,  who  in  order  to  compete  with  us,  have  attempt- 
ed to  copy  us,  and  in  so  doing  infringed  a  number  of  our 
fundamental  patents.  Suits  have  been  pending  against  these 
inf ringers  for  some  time.  We  invite  your  attention  to  Judge 
Buffington's  decision,  given  in  the  appendix  of  this  bulletin 
which  sustains  our  patent  covering  the  freely  swinging 
arm  head. 

Infringers  of  our  patents  have  circulated  false  reports 
regarding  the  status  of  this  litigation,  and  in  sending  you  a 
copy  of  this  decision  it  is  done  only  for  the  purpose  of  acquaint- 
ing the  trade  with  the  true  situation. 

The  other  suits  that  are  pending  are  being  pushed  most 
aggressively.  We  have  other  applications  in  the  Patent 
Office  covering  some  of  the  details  of  our  later  machines, 
and  as  soon  as  these  patents  are  issued  additional  suits  will 
be  brought. 

On  the  following  pages  we  briefly  describe  a  few  of  our 
different  types  of  cleaners.  Before  you  clean  your  boilers  the 
next  time,  we  would  suggest  that  you  communicate  with  us, 
giving  us  the  size  of  your  tubes  and  thickness  of  scale,  and 
upon  receipt  of  the  information  we  will  take  pleasure  in  sending 
you  a  machine  which  we  consider  best  adapted  for  the  work. 
If  it  does  not  clean  your  boilers  quicker,  better  and  with  less 
wear  and  tear  on  the  machine,  as  compared  to  any  other 
machine  you  are  using,  you  have  the  privilege  of  returning 

— 1  — 


162902 


it  to  us  at  our  expense.  In  making  this  statement  we  are 
perfectly  willing  that  the  Liberty  Cleaner  be  tested  in  competL 
tion  with  any  other  tube  cleaner,  whether  it  be  turbine,  rotary 
motor,  or  so  called  power  machine. 

There  are  imitations  of  our  machines  on  the  market, 
regarding  which  the  most  extravagant  claims  are  made.  As 
these  imitations  are  only  attempts  at  copying  our  goods,  and 
as  the  copyist  has  to  await  the  latest  development  before 
making  the  imitation,  we  would  respectfully  request  that  you 
make  a  thorough  investigation  of  our  latest  improved  tools 
before  adopting  tools  of  any  other  make,  as  you  will  find  our 
machines  superior  to  others,  not  only  in  design,  but  material 
and  workmanship  as  well. 

We  also  illustrate  a  number  of  our  other  specialties,  to 
which  we  invite  your  attention. 

Feed  water  regulators  are  becoming  a  necessity  in  all 
modern  steam  plants,  and  we  take  pleasure  in  announcing 
that  we  have  developed  and  perfected  a  new  type  of  feed 
water  regulator,  which  is  a  marked  improvement  over  any 
other  feed  water  regulating  device.  If  you  are  interested  in 
feed  water  regulators,  and  will  write  us,  we  will  be  glad  to 
explain  to  you  its  merits.  IT  WILL  PAY  YOU  TO  INVESTI- 
GATE THE  LIBERTY  FEED  WATER  REGULATOR  BEFORE 
YOU  PLACE  YOUR  ORDERS  ELSEWHERE. 

Liberty  Manufacturing  Co. 

6910    Susquehanna   St. 
PITTSBURG,  PA. 


HEAVY  DUTY  LIBERTY  CLEANER. 


The  freely  swinging  arm  head  as  shown  attached  to  the 
Heavy  Duty  Cleaner  on  the  above  illustration  is  the  cleaner 
which  is  referred  to  in  the  United  States  Court  decision. 
This  head  is  used  for  light  and  medium  scale.  For  very  heavy 
scale,  and  tubes  which  have  been  long  neglected,  we  use  the 
four-winged  head,  as  shown  in  Fig.  2,  attached  to  the 
extra  heavy  universal  coupling. 


Fig.  2 

In  using  this  Fig.  2  head,  the  freely  swinging  arm 
head  is  detached  from  the  motor  and  the  universal  coupling 
attached  direct. 

If  you  have  a  large  boiler  plant  and  the  scale  is  heavy 
and  hard  to  remove,  you  will  find  that  the  Liberty  Heavy 
Duty  will  do  the  work  in  less  than  half  the  time  now  required 
with  your  present  tool.  We  make  this  very  broad  statement 
regardless  of  the  tool  you  are  now  using. 

This  Heavy  Duty  Cleaner  differs  from  other  turbines, 
in  that  the  body  is  made  of  a  solid  piece  of  steel,  all  parts  are 
made  extra  heavy,  so  that  the  turbine  is  practically  indestruc- 
tible. 

—3— 


LIBERTY  STANDARD  CLEANER. 


Fig.    3. 


Figure  3  shows  our  Liberty  Standard  Cleaner,  to 
which  is  attached  the  same  cutting  head  as  shown  in  Figure  2. 
This  machine  is  also  supplied  with  the  same  kind  of  cutting 
head  as  shown  on  the  Heavy  Duty  Machine,  and  is  illustrated 
in  Fig.  1. 

The  bodies  of  these  turbines  are  made  of  either  brass  or 
steel,  and  they  are  designed  for  ordinary  service  in  moderate 
sized  plants  where  the  cleaning  is  done  at  frequent  intervals 


PNEUMATIC  CLEANER. 


Fig.    4. 

If  you  have  a  good  supply  of  air,  your  attention  is  called 
to  the  Pneumatic  Cleaner,  as  shown  in  Figure  4.  This 
machine  is  equipped  with  heads  similar  to  those  shown  on 
our  Heavy  Duty  and  Standard  machines.  We  make  these 
pneumatic  tools  for  all  sized  bent  and  straight  tubes,  and  you 
will  find  this  machine  a  very  efficient  tool.  The  motor  is  a 
rotary  type  and  not  a  turbine. .  It  has  few  wearing  parts  and 
has  proven  equally  as  efficient  as  any  other  tool  we  manu- 
facture. 


NIAGARA  No.  2 


Fig.    5. 


Figure  5  illustrates  our  Niagara  No.  2  Machine,  which 
has  a  very  extensive  use  in  small  plants  and  where  the  scale 
is  not  over  J"  in  thickness.  The  Niagara  is  a  ball  bearing 
machine  well  designed  and  is  recommended  for  new  boilers, 
or  where  the  scale  is  light  and  does  not  accumulate  very  rapidly 

In  comparing  this  machine  with  other  ball  bearing 
cleaners  it  will  be  noticed  that  it  is  very  much  more  substantial 
in  construction,  the  arms  are  heavier  and  the  parts  more 
durable.  In  addition  to  these  advantages  it  develops  more 
power  than  any  other  ball  bearing  machine  in  existence. 


TWIN  STRAINER. 


Fig.    6. 

The  above  illustration  shows  our  Twin  Strainer,  which  is, 
as  its  name  implies',  two  strainers  in  one,  which  are  alternatively 
thrown  in  and  out  of  action  by  simply  operating  a  pair  of 
valves,  the  strainer  not  in  use  being  accessible  for  cleaning. 
The  apparatus  consists  of  a  casing  having  two  passage  ways, 
each  containing  a  basket  shaped  strainer  removably  secured 
in  the  side  of  the  casing,  forming  perforated  pockets  which 
catch  and  retain  the  dirt  in  the  water.  By  a  simple  arrange- 
ment of  the  valves  the  flow  of  the  water,  or  any  other  liquid 
to  be  strained,  is  caused  to  flow  through  one  basket  while 
the  other,  being  out  of  service,  can  be  cleaned  and  replaced 
without  interrupting  the  flow. 

—6— 


This  strainer  is  indispensable  for  condenser  installations, 
especially  when  used  in  connection  with  steam  turbines,  as 
uninterrupted  high  vacunms  can  be  maintained  no  difference 
how  much  foreign  matter  may  be  carried  in  the  water  supply. 

A  Twin  Strainer  should  be  used  on  every  water  line 
carrying  anchor  ice,  sticks,  leaves,  grass,  waste,  fish,  wood, 
cinders,  or  any  other  refuse,  as  it  will  soon  pay  for  itself  in 
preventing  expensive  shut  downs. 

LIBERTY  PURIFIER. 


13 


Fig.    7. 

Figure  7  shows  our  type  "O"  Liberty  Oil  Purifier  in 
which  gravity  is  used  as  a  purifying  means,  in  conjunction 
with  a  fine  strainer  mesh.  No  water  of  any  kind  is  used 
through  which  the  oil  is  passed.  The  principle  upon  which 
the  purifier  operates  is  as  follows: 

'  -  1st,  The  oil  is  strained ;  2nd,  Separated  from  the  en- 
trained water;  3rd,  Heated  to  a  high  temperature;  4th, 
Treated  in  the  treating  chamber  at  this  high  temperature, 

—7— 


thereby  releasing  the  heavy  impurities  and  allowing  them  to 
settle  in  the  bottom  of  the  chamber;  5th,  Then  passing  the 
oil  through  filter  bags  and  delivering  it  into  the  clean  oil  cham- 
ber ready  for  use. 

These  purifiers  will  restore  the  dirtiest  oil  to  its  original 
value,  and  can  be  used  either  in  conjunction  with  an  oiling 
system,  or  otherwise  to  meet  the  local  requirements. 

FABER  BLOW-OFF  VALVE. 


Fig.  9. 

Figures  8  and  9  show  the  Faber  R  low-Off  Valve,  the 
advantage  of  which  is  that  a  steam  jet  is  connected  to  it  in 
such  a  way  that  just  before  the  valve  seats  the  steam  entering 
through  the  steam  connection  throughly  removes  any  sediment 
that  may  lodge  on  the  seat,  thus  preventing  damage  to  the 
seat  and  disc  by  closing  the  valve  on  top  of  this  accumulated 
sediment. 

Upon  request  we  will  take  pleasure  in  supplying  you 
further  information  and  prices  on  any  of  our  appliances. 

LIBERTY  MANUFACTURING  CO., 


69 1 0  Susquehanna  St. 


Pittsburg,  Pa.,  U.  S.  A. 


APPENDIX. 


In  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the 
Western  District  of  Pennsylvania. 


No.  47   Nov.   Term,    1902. 

LIBERTY  MANUFACTURING  COMPANY, 

vs. 
AMERICAN  BREWING  COMPANY. 

BUFFINGTON,  J. 

This  Bill  in  Equity  brought  by  the  Liberty  Manufacturing 
Company  against  the  American  Brewing  Company  charges 
infringement  of  claims  1,  2,  5  and  6  of  Patent  No.  641,092, 
issued  January  9th,  1900,  to  W.  S.  Elliott  for  a  boiler  tube 
cleaner.  The  respondent  is  a  mere  user  and  the  case  is  de- 
fended by  the  maker  of  the  device  in  question,  the  Lagonda 
Manufacturing  Company. 

Prior  to  the  patent  is  question,  the  use  of  water  tube 
boilers  had  developed  a  serious  trouble  in  the  formation  of  a 
stone  lime  crust  on  the  inner  surface  of  the  tubes  due  to  the 
action  of  heat  on  the  mineral  salts  contained  in  the  water. 
This  layer  reduced  steam  space  and  capacity  and  increased 
fuel  consumption.  So  serious  was  this  trouble  owing  to  the 
difficulty  in  removing  the  crust  that  the  Stirling  Company, 
one  of  the  largest  makers  of  such  boilers,  was  threatened  with 
disuse  of  their  boilers  on  that  account,  its  tubes,  owing  to  end 
curves,  being  especially  hard  to  clean.  Elliott,  the  patentee, 
who  had  charge  of  the  Pittsburg  Agency  of  that  Company, 


being  aware  of  this  trouble,  set  about  to  solve  it,  and  as  early 
as  February  12,  1897,  drew  a  sketch  which  disclosed  the  device 
subsequently  embodied  in  the  patent  in  suit.  With  this  device 
is  used  a  turbine  of  smaller  diameter  than  the  tube  to  be 
cleaned,  which  is  attached  to  a  hose.  To  the  shaft  of  the 
turbine,  which  shaft  may  be  provided  with  a  universal  joint 
to  allow  the  device  to  follow  the  end  curvature  of  tubes,  is 
attached  a  head  which  constitutes  the  Elliott  device.  This 
head  is  provided  with  four  longitudinally  extending  arms 
pivoted  at  their  rear  ends  in  inset  openings  at  four  equi- 
distant points  on  the  periphery  of  the  head.  A  set  of  two  arms 
of  longer  length  and  a  set  of  two  of  shorter  length  are  mounted 
at  right  angles.  On  the  forward,  free  end  of  each  arm,  a  toothed 
movable  cutting  wheel  is  mounted  on  a  shaft  extending 
lengthwise  the  arm.  When  the  turbine  shaft  is  rotated  at 
high  speed,  the  forward  extending  arms  on  the  head  by 
centrifugal  force  fly  outward,  bring  the  cutters  in  contact 
with  the  scale  and  deliver  a  rapid  succession  of  blows  of  both 
a  revolving  and  striking  character.  This  blow  is  variously 
described  in  the  proofs  as  a  sidewise  or  swiping  blow  and  the 
process  is  styled  a  picking  action.  By  these  blows  the  crust 
is  broken  into  small  pieces  which  are  washed  out  ahead  of  the 
device  by  the  exhaust  of  the  turbine.  The  claims  in  contro- 
versy are  as  follows:  "A  rotary  tube  cleaner  having  freely 
swinging  arms,  the  planes  of  movement  of  the  arms  being 
longitudinal  of  the  axis  of  the  tool,  and  cutting  discs  secured 
to  the  arms  and  lying  in  planes  transverse  to  the  axes  of  said 
arms;  substantially  as  described."  "2.  A  rotary  tube  cleaner, 
having  freely  swinging  arms  moving  in  planes  longitudinal 
of  the  axis  of  the  tool,  each  arm  carrying  a  series  of  toothed 
discs  lying  in  planes  transverse  to  the  axes  of  said  arms; 
substantially  as  described."  "3.  A  rotary  tube  cleaner, 
having  freely  swinging  arms  moving  in  planes  longitudinal 
of  the  axis  of  the  tool,  said  arms  carrying  cutting  discs  lying 
in  planes  transverse  to  the  axis  of  the  arms,  the  cutters  upon 
one  arm  being  in  advance  of  those  upon  the  other ;  substan- 
tially as  described."  "6.  A  rotary  tube  cleaner,  having  pivoted 
thereto  freely  swinging  arms  with  free  outer  ends,  said  arms 

—10— 


moving  in  planes  longitudinal  of  the  axis  of  the  tool,  and 
cutting  discs  rotatably  mounted  upon  the  arms  near  their 
outer  ends  and  lying  in  planes  transverse  of  said  arms;  sub- 
stantially as  described." 

The  device  was  successful,  supplied  a  recognized  need  in 
boiler  practice  and  met  with  prompt  commercial  success. 
It  is  sought  to  invalidate  the  patent  on  the  ground  it  was  a 
joint  invention  of  Elliott  and  Faber.  The  uncontradicted 
evidence  afforded  by  Elliott's  sketch  of  February,  1897,  how- 
ever, carries  the  conception  of  the  device  by  Elliott  back 
of  any  alleged  suggestion  by  Faber.  Much  testimony  has 
been  taken.  Narrowed  down  it  discloses  no  patent  which  so 
resembles  Elliott's  device  as  to  warrant  present  discussion. 
It  is  sought,  however,  to  show  two  prior  uses,  viz:  that  of 
Bradley  and  those  of  Weinland.  As  to  the  former,  we  are 
clear  that  the  device,  if  a  subsequent  use,  would  not  infringe 
Elliott's  claims  and  as  a  prior  use  did  not  anticipate.  While 
Bradley  had  forward  pointed  arms,  yet  they  were  provided 
with  stationary  slanting  cutting  knives  which  served  to  scrape 
the  tube.  It  lacked  the  revoluble  cutters  of  the  Elliott  device. 
The  Bradley  device  left  no  impress  on  the  art  and  the  reason 
for  this  we  find  in  the  testimony  of  respondent's  witness, 
Kennedy,  the  Manager  of  the  Isabella  Furnace  where  Bradley 
used  the  cleaner,  who  says  he  "objected  to  the  use  of  this 
cutter  on  the  boilers  for  fear  that  the  cutters  being  revolved 
at  great  speed  in  the  tube  would  cut  the  tube.  I  considered 
they  were  cleaning  them  too  well." 

As  to  the  numerous  Weinland  devices,  we  are  convinced 
by  the  proofs  that  a  clear  and  satisfactory  case  of  prior  use, 
such  as  the  law  requires,  is  not  made  out.  Indeed,  the  state- 
ments made  by  Weinland  himself  in  1901,  to  Swartz,  a  friendly 
witness,  in  commenting  on  their  conversation  and  views  on 
the  boiler  cleaner  problem  in  1898  are  wholly  at  variance 
with  the  contention  now  made  by  the  respondent.  It  may  be 
conceded  that  some  of  the  contended  for  devices  of  Weinland 
were  along  the  line  of  development  which  Elliott  success- 
fully perfected,  but  none  of  them  went  to  the  full  extent 
Elliott  did,  and  it  required  that  full  extent  of  development 

— 11 — 


to  make  the  device,  such   as  is  now  made  by  complainant 
and  defendant  company,  a  success. 

On  the  whole  we  are  satisfied  that  a  prior  use  is  not  estab- 
lished, either  by  the  proofs  or  the  character  of  Weinland's 
devices.  The  patent  being  adjudged  valid,  we  are  of  opinion 
infringement  is  established.  The  main  difference  between 
the  two  devices  is  in  the  fact  that  in  the  Lagonda  device  the 
two  sets  of  arms  instead  of  being  of  different  lengths  pivoted 
on  the  same  plane,  are  of  the  same  length  but  pivoted  from 
two  different  planes.  This,  however,  is  a  mere  mechanical 
alternative,  which  still  serves  to  answer  the  element  of  the 
fifth  claim,  which  reads,  "One  arm  being  in  advance  of  those 
upon  the  other."  Let  a  decree  be  drawn. 


YC  6695! 


